I have a question not directly related to the WSJ, but to shrinkage in general: Why is the 48-inch weeb primarily an American phenomenon? A lot of international papers have made investments in new presses for Berliner or tab formats, but you still see papers in Europe and Asia (think the Sydney Morning Herald) on a 60-inch web. Aren't they under the same pressures as American papers? Are their audiences and advertisers more resistant to the narrow broadhseet?

Well *THAT'S* it then... the key reason Mario's The Man and I'm not: I have more luck imagining Kate Moss unclothed. :)

I think it has very little to do with audiences resistent to change and a TON to do with advertisers resistent to change. If we keep shrinking the broadsheet, we'll be at a Berliner size soon enough.

Well here's a question: how much internet access do those countries have compared to us? And what's the average salary? Can they afford broadband and to network eight computers in their homes? I don't mean to sound so Americanly naive, but maybe the fact that there is less choice in media options has something to do with it.

I would by far prefer the berliner format to any here in the states. easy to hold, easy to scan and read. it is ALL about the interface.

Bottom line. Money talks. Size = money. Editorial takes it in the shorts - Designers to the rescue. Ha!

Get ready for the super small newspaper of 2525.

Magnifying glasses included with every issue!

VR/

Everything I've ever read has said that the U.S. has less broadband internet access as percentage of population than most other industrialized nations. We definitely have less mobile phone usage. Perhaps this is an issue of American market economics which demand a much higher return on investments, and won't allow something to move along on anything less than double digit growth.

that's outstanding. it makes the old version look so.... wrong.

American newspapers charge ad rates by the inch.
If you shrink the paper you have to persuade your longtime advertisers that less is more.
It is a pretty hard nut to crack, especially if given the desperate situation newspapers are in.
Try telling a longtime advertiser that your Ad will be smaller but we are charging the same rate. Why? Because we need the money to feed Wall Street's wrongheaded idea that all profits must increase every year otherwise you are a dying industry.
Newspapers are more profitable than most Internet startups and websites that typically lose money.
It is all about perception and groupthink.
The insanity of betting (stock trading) as well as pandering to the basest of Americans wants (celebrity news, People, Look, Enquirer) has now caused the worst thing to happen to a democracy.
Look over here while we do what we want. No matter the consequences.
Less people reporting on what is happening in government, politics and your daily life means the people who have money can ride roughshod over the truth.
Public relations has triumphed over realism.
Wait? Has it happened? It has already happened.

francie, you bring up an interesting point. australia is one country which normally has a very rapid uptake in technology in terms of relative population - I think that has alot to do with the size of the country and the need for quality communication channels - mobile (or wireless) is a very good indication of this. That said the uptake of broadband has been quite slow here compared to alot of other countries (and behind the US definitely) due to high initial pricing.

might be my turn to be naive but I get the feeling that you guys in the states get bombarded with alot of Murdoch driven drivel ie. Fox News and unfortunately the situation in Australia (Murdoch's original home) is mirroring that. There are still a few independent papers ie. Sydney Morning Herald, The Age (Fairfax) and ABC (Radio/TV) but the majority are Murdoch owned.

Sorry to sound like some conspiracy theorist but I don't think its any coincidence that the three major parties of the "Coalition of the willing" have been countries dominated by Murdoch media.

As much as I'd like to think the majority of Aussies are well informed unfortunately, and I'm sad to say this, I don't think they are. The uptake of the broadband hasn't been quick enough I don't think - this can't happen soon enough.

Funny, I was under the impression that US newspaper readers had less choice than most Europeans with most papers being regional titles and only the NYT, CSM and USA Today

Other people have already made the point about broadband, digital TV and mobile phone usage, all of which are enormous in Europe - and moreso in parts of Asia.

On the point generally, the US media as a whole does seem very narrow, in terms of both politics and tone, to these European eyes, at least.

As for the size issue, I do find US papers desperately tall and narrow in comparison to European titles. The Irish Times, for example, often feels about a kilometre wide but I wouldn't want it any other way. I must admit, though, I like the CSM's tiny format. It's so compact compared to European tabloids.

Unfinished sentence

"Funny, I was under the impression that US newspaper readers had less choice than most Europeans with most papers being regional titles and only the NYT, CSM and USA Today"

attempting to be national papers, though I suppose it is a vast country.

tally Strauss upturning coniferous annihilates sulfa inner slogan milkiness

tally Strauss upturning coniferous annihilates sulfa inner slogan milkiness

polymorphic Bern obviation,layouts Ezekiel rarer ...

polymorphic Bern obviation,layouts Ezekiel rarer ...